Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday August 17, 2012 @12:15PM
from the other-states-shocked-that-kentucky-has-biology-tests dept.

bbianca127 writes "Kentucky mandated that schools include tests that are based on national standards, and contracted test maker ACT to handle them. Legislators were then shocked that evolution was so prominently featured, even though evolution is well-supported and a central tenet of modern biology. One KY Senator said he wanted creationism taught alongside evolution, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism in science classes is a violation of the establishment clause. Representative Ben Wade stated that evolution is just a theory, and that Darwin made it all up. Legislators want ACT to make a Kentucky-specific ACT test, though the test makers say that would be prohibitively expensive. This is just the latest in a round of states' fight against evolution — Louisiana and Tennessee have recently passed laws directed against teaching evolution."

Sorry, hillbillies. We're not making a separate test for you just because you're a bunch of bible-thumping idiots. We're also not making a separate test for Muslims which women are forbidden to take, or a separate Scientology test with science questions involving Thetan levels, or a separate test for North Koreans where the correct answer to every question is A. Our Supreme Leader, Praised Be His Name!

Everyone gets the same test (well, okay, we can do braille and language translations, but THAT'S IT). And studying for it is going to involve reading more than the Bible, or Koran, or Talmud, or whatever the fuck holy text you happen to be thumping.

Besides, you need real science in Kentucky. That meth isn't going to cook itself, you know.

if you are so all-fired to exclude scientific thought, send your kids to church school. as for everybody else, they should be exposed to the real world and all its swirling contradictions through a broad-based education.

following fruit fly genes is not going to damn you to hell everlasting, for God made that mechanism. pinheads.

if you are so all-fired to exclude scientific thought, send your kids to church school...

Some church schools excel in science, surpassing most public schools. Some very large churches also have no problem with evolution and have publicly stated that scientific observations and finding are not in conflict with faith. The astronomer and physics professor who developed the big bang theory was also a priest.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and render unto God the things that are God's"

Which is actually a weasel statement when you look at it closely enough. By Christian theology, what *isn't* God's? Of course, Jesus was answering a "gotcha" question that was trying to trap him into advocating not paying Roman taxes, so a little weaseling might have been justified.

"God said I'll make some D N A
They can use it any way they want
From paramecium right up to man.
They'll have sex and mix up sections
Of their code they'll have mutations,
The whole thing works like clockwork over time.
I'll just sit back in the shade
While everyone gets laid
That's what they call Intelligent Design"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpNoQaB2LT0 [youtube.com]

These are tests to give to High School students as part of their lessons, right? Kentucky isn't actually suggesting that the ACT tests widely used for college admissions be rewritten for them, are they? If they're asking for Kentucky-specific tests for their classes, I wouldn't have a problem with ACT writing them for them. Kentucky WOULD have to expect a pretty hefty cost to finance writing of new tests with a limited audience (But it sounds like ACT isn't willing to do that work, or doesn't think Kentucky would be willing to pay the necessary price, fair enough).

If they ARE talking about the college-admissions ACT tests.... well, I'd be willing to bet very few schools would be willing to accept those alternate test for admissions.

You want central planning, right? You want education to be controlled from the top down, by people you have never even met, right? You want the system to be enforced through the coercive power of government, right?

Then you got exactly what you wanted. This is central planning, and it turned out exactly how central planning is supposed to.

I agree! The national standard of No Child Left Behind -teach to a test - has failed; which was yet another standard created by a Bible thumping moron.

I hate to break the news to you, but that is not the problem with the education system at all. You are looking at a very recent stupid idea that was added to a system that was already in such bad shape we are the laughing stock of the industrial world.

Go back a bit further in time, and find out when we started teaching to "Standards Testing" and "Memorization" instead of teaching kids to think and explore. You'll have to go back to the 50s, but it's there. The collapse of the US Education system is so blatantly obvious when you look for the answer instead of repeating what other people tell you is the problem.

We don't teach people to think any longer, we teach them to memorize data and repeat data. This stifles the creative process as well as limits the ability of people to think logically, rationally, and critically. If you want samples, just look at the incredible amount of fallacy used here on/. where it's a site for "nerds". It's not even good fallacy, it's extremely basic and obvious so it's not like people are trying to make good rhetorical arguments.

Thinking I might have to disagree with you. When I talked with my grandparents when they were alive and my parents who are in their 80's now, the educational system back then was heavily based upon early memorization which gives you the fundamentals. Then in high school, they were opened up to the "think about it" model. Now days, kids aren't forced to memorize anything, and they are the ones that are hosed.

Not entirely. You can religion as long as you classify it as a subject of philosophy, not science. But if you try to, say, rewrite a biology test because it's rooted in facts and not faith, then yes, religion needs to stay out of it.

They seem to be mistaken on the basic principles of education.Education doesn't teach the truth. It teaches only what we know. It should be teaching kids that what they learn now isn't set in stone. It's not 100% proven, and is subject to change through discovery and hard work.The don't have to believe in a thing to learn about a thing, but if they believe strong enough in the contrary then rather than just have kids dismiss it out of hand, schools should be teaching them to question, probe and investigate.

The only reason these people are SHOCKED that evolution is in the curriculum is because they believe everything taught in schools should be 100% true, always and forever, and actually believe such an idea exists.

You're too generous. These people are shocked that evolution is in the curriculum because evolution conflicts with the bronze age mythology they've been raised to believe is 100% true, always and forever.

Due to cognitivie dissonance, they may end up being the same thing. People don't like to think they're dishonest, so when they dishonestly pretend that they think that way, they tend to end up thinking that way. There has to be a clear and immediate reward to avoid that trap. Since politicians would spend years pretending to believe that stuff and would mostly assoiciate with other people who believe (or also pretend to believe), it's almost inevitable that they would end up believing it, regardless of their original beliefs.

So either they believe it, or they are slowly convincing themselves to believe it.

We've reached the point where the true believers are actually in power, not just pandered to by the cynical types. Luckily that hasn't happened at the presidential level yet, but it sure has in Congress and the state legislatures.

A person who honestly believes truth does not exist is criminally insane and should be restrained for life. Pushing an innocent old person in front of a bus or setting fire to house while the residents sleep is wrong , that will always be true. The reason that people like the idea that truth does not exist it they think it frees them from moral obligation.

No, those points are not always true, and the term "true" is better defined before you use it this way. What if the old innocent person has a terminal and painful disease, and a loving friend or relative has this as the only way to end the suffering that has rendered their life useless misery? What if the residents of the house have a disease so dangerous that there can be no risk of allowing it to escape the building? There's far more nuance here, but what we can do is use reason to establish a common morality that most people would agree upon, even if there's no magical force in the universe to give it legitimacy.

I recall a thought experiment in which the reader has to design the society in which they'll live, but they can't know which position in society they themselves will occupy, leading most people to devise a society in which life at all levels is as fair as it can be. I'd bet these societies, given some thought, would be far superior to anything mandated by the Bible. Funny you should mention slavery, as slavery would probably not figure highly in them. The reason why some people deny the existence of universal truth is because they lack the arrogance to make such unfounded assertions - particularly when universal truth is a fancy way of saying "here's how I think things should work".

If you believe that socialism is a monolithic entity that strives for godless communism, well, you've just not read your Bible or studied the lives of the early Christians. The sharing of resources, which was not always voluntary, was a common feature of the groups. Acts 4:32?

Because, if you're not kidding, I need to pick my jaw up off the floor. You seem to be saying that people can do whatever the majority wants to do...

Your entire argument essentially says that we should only teach what the majority of the people want to be taught. So after we institute your plan we can go to any third grade class in the country and find such interesting subjects as the best Pokemon cards and what is the best show on Disney. When we get to high school we'll need completely separate curriculum for boys and girls since they will never agree on what to study.

I'm sure it never crossed your mind that the purpose of education is to teach people things that they may not know, regardless of whether or not they want to learn them. You're saying that people should not be taught what it basically accepted as true simply because they don't want to hear it? Holy crap, you better not let any fifth graders hear that or they'll riot in math class and demand to be instructed on skateboarding and bike riding.

If you want to live in a country where there's a majority of backwards religious nuts, and you don't want their opinions affecting national policy, the only way to do that is to have an authoritarian government.

Or a constitution which specifically disallows the government from supporting the establishment of religion.

The US Constitution - as amended - just prevents requiring you to belong to a particular religion to hold elected office.

What are you smoking? The establishment clause of the first amendment pretty clearly prohibits preference of one religion over another.

It doesn't prevent teaching about religions. In practice, the education system doesn't prevent this either in most cases. You only face resistance if you teach about the predominant religion. You can teach about Greek and Roman mythology, American Indian beliefs, Mayan beliefs, Inca beliefs, Egyptian beliefs, and certainly Muslim, Hindu, or other far Eastern beliefs of the modern age. You can talk some about Mormons and their trek west. Just label it cultural diversity training or lump it in with geography and you're golden. Just don't teach about Christianity or someone will get you fired.

That's an exaggeration - but not a very big one.

Uh, pretty much any high school curriculum for a European history class reads like fucking timeline of Christianity. You know, the late Roman empire and the Vatican, Martin Luther, the Anglican church, Puritans, and all that jazz?

If you want to live in a country where there's a majority of backwards religious nuts, and you don't want their opinions affecting national policy, the only way to do that is to have an authoritarian government.

There's a difference between keeping people's religious opinions out of state policy, and forbidding the Establishment of a state religion. Teaching a religious doctrine with tax money constitutes establishment of a state religion.

No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy. If the people are a bunch of religious nuts, then the education standard needs to include religion (whichever flavor the majority wants) and omit evolution (of that's what a majority wants). This is the price of democracy: you have to share with all the other people you co-inhabit a region with.

Before you respond further, please read up on Tyranny of the Majority, and why it's a bad thing, and how respecting the rights of the individual is essential to a functioning democracy. (Hint: Your logic eats itself.)

No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy. If the people are a bunch of religious nuts, then the education standard needs to include religion (whichever flavor the majority wants) and omit evolution (of that's what a majority wants). This is the price of democracy: you have to share with all the other people you co-inhabit a region with.

Be careful where you're heading with that idea, as what you propose is exactly what ages of very intelligent political philosophers have correctly pointed out to be the most brutal and merciless part of democracy: The tyranny of the majority.

If you take a democracy to mean that you put everything to a vote and then blindly enforce what the majority demands, you quickly end up in a nightmarish hellhole.

After all, what if a populist puts up to vote that you must buy and memorize a particular book and you are told that 51% of the people agreed to that?What if it is then put up for the vote, that due to the way voting works, all parties should be merged, and 51% of the people agree?What if is then asked, what you should do with a certain 1% of the population, and 51% of the people agree to seize their property?

With just three, small votes, you're in a wonderful cross between Mao's China, Stalins Soviet Union and -- and this is up to you to choose -- Hitler's Germany, Mussolinis Italy, Franco's Spain, Europe during the Inquisition, the USA during the Indian Displacement, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, etc. pp.

After all, remember that no-one said that those 51% of the population were always the same 51%. As an old adage goes: When they came for the Communists, I didn't say a word. When they came for the Gypsies, I didn't say a word. When they came for the Jews, I didn't say a word. When they came to get me, there was no-one left to say a word to save me.

No, the power of democracy does not lie in the tyranny of the majority; it lies within the civil discourse between all; majorities, minorities, loud or silent. It lies within the concept that everyone must be included to agree on a best course of action. All safe-guards in a democratic society must be laid out to guarantee this fundamental concept. That it must be impossible for any part, to take away the voice of any other part.

And, not to put too fine point on it: Taking away the voice of reason, the process of rational and impassioned evaluation of how we think the world works -- even if that reason might arrive at a conclusion you deem erroneous -- in favour of the voice of dogma, is to deny one of those safeguard of democracy.

TL;DR:The difference is that those teaching evolution do not deny you your right to teach your kid your point-of-view; they only deny you the option of saying that your view is the only way to look at it. In contrast, most creationists/intelligent designers want to force a single point-of-view, to the exclusion of all the others; especially if they come from an impassioned look at the world as it is.

If you like central planning, then you need to accept the opinions of other people in your country. That means you need to change the standards for science and eliminate things they don't like, and put in religious stuff they want.

No, you don't. Their shit is not science, therefore it doesn't go in. End of story.

Local control is overrated. I think that if the religious cranks actually end up running the country, the US is doomed anyway. But our government has stood fast against continuous assault by religious cranks almost since its inception, so I'm not terribly concerned. On the other hand, we have plenty of examples to show us that at the local level, it is not at all hard for a small, organized group of cranks to take over school boards and substitute their dogma for science

Unless, of course, the "religious cranks" get on top. Then where will you be?

Emigration or armed revolution, I suppose.

Fortunately, even with the last president, the country resisted turning into the full-fledged theocracy so many of his supporters wanted. Sure, he gave away a few tens of billions of dollars of our tax money to specific churches, which was bad and wrong, but not nearly as bad as forcing teenage rape victims to marry their rapists and stoning gays to death like these people promote in other more theocratic countries.

Perhaps this should be left to more local control so parents, who care more about their children than you or any beauracrat does, get to decide.

Sorry, I'm skeptical of the view that having standards for science education set at the Federal level by actual sciences necessarily implies Federal control of my thermostat. We have had Federal standards for many things for hundreds of years, yet I still control my own thermostat. Some "slippery slopes" just aren't all that slippery

Oh what a horrible abuse of power! If you don't have health insurance you have to pay a modest fee that goes a small way toward defraying the public cost of healthcare for the uninsured--like yourself. An idea that is so abusive of personal freedom that that it was invented by the Heritage Foundation

Top-down control when taken to its logical conclusion also means having Congress order you to install thermostats in your home which they can turn-off at any point (like on a hot day when the power grid is overloading... goodbye A/C). Or ordering you to buy a Prius or similar hybrid. Or outlawing SUVs. Or ordering you to buy a Windows PC so you can do online voting/polling. And so on.

That's not the "logical conclusion". That's called "reductio ad absurdum".

Top-down control when taken to its logical conclusion also means having Congress order you to install thermostats in your home which they can turn-off at any point (like on a hot day when the power grid is overloading... goodbye A/C). Or ordering you to buy a Prius or similar hybrid. Or outlawing SUVs. Or ordering you to buy a Windows PC so you can do online voting/polling. And so on.

There are a lot of things in our society that, when taken to their logical conclusion, would result in a terrible infringement of our most basic rights.

You want central planning, right? You want education to be controlled from the top down, by people you have never even met, right? You want the system to be enforced through the coercive power of government, right?

Then you got exactly what you wanted. This is central planning, and it turned out exactly how central planning is supposed to.

I think you misunderstand the word "planning". This is centralized testing of the basic standards. The plan-- or the "how" things are done-- are completely decentralized. The better plans will win and the worse ones will fail, just as a good, decentralized market dictates. In fact I don't much like the No Child Left Behind's "Teach to the Test" approach, but to call this "central planning" is disingenuous and makes it harder to debate the actual issues.

You want central planning, right? You want education to be controlled from the top down, by people you have never even met, right? You want the system to be enforced through the coercive power of government, right?

Nope.

I want standardized testing (not necessarily "central", and not this NCLB bullshit - More like the NY Regency exams). If you and your inbred neighbors want to teach nothing but apples-and-snakes, have it your way; but when you try to get into a college or get a job, we'll all have no ambiguity whatsoever what your A+ in "science" really means.

I want licensed doctors to grasp the concept of evolved antibiotic resistance. I want historians capable of referring to dates prior to 4000BCE. I want psychiatrists who give out antidepressants rather than E-meters.

If you want shamans and voodoo, I have nothing against you having those as an option; but you damned well won't call them "doctors" - At least not without the qualifier "witch".

Can't we just cut the south free and stop talking about them? They are a money drain on this country, and I am sick of hearing about them. Hell, I have family in the south. All they ever talk about is how Obama is a muslim and how his birth certificate is a fake. The south is too resilient to progress. We would be better off without them slowing us down.

Kentucky was claimed by both the Union and the Confederacy. Parts of the state actively supported the Union, other parts actively supported the Confederacy. Similar story when you get to individuals. Kentucky being considered a Union state is literally one of those instances where the victor gets to write history.

Missouri had a similar split and the results were particularly bloody guerilla raids by small local groups. Similar problems may have occurred in Kentucky, I'm not familiar with what happened there.

Virginia split in two, West Virginia exists because locals went Union.

Kentucky was much less of a bloody affair than Missouri was. There were pro-South guerillas, but not in significant numbers. In fact, when Confederate general Bragg invaded Tennessee and Kentucky in mid-1862, he brought along tens of thousands of rifles, hoping to arm thousands of Kentuckians who would rise up alongside him when they saw gray troops in their streets. He ended up carting nearly all of them back South three months later, an Army of Kentucky having never materialized.

It also would have been impossible for the Union to simply have allowed Kentucky to split off. Militarily, the state was the key to the Ohio River valley. Had it seceded, it would have basically been a knife in the Union's armpit, poised to slice off the entire Midwest. Lincoln himself (paraphrase) said "I hope to have God on my side, but what I really need is Kentucky."

The idiocy is not only in the south. I was checking out the local private schools for my daughter in an upstate NY city of over 200,000 people. I asked the new principal at one of the Catholic schools what science curriculum they used. He said, "Well, you know, we teach the idea of evolution, but it is mostly religious based." That was the end of that visit.

Pay no attention to the troll submitting stories.Somewhere in America millions are doing something stupid. A percentage of these people are public figures and a percentage of those are in government. This is nothing. This isn't even news. This is a reporter somewhere with search program trolling the press releases and small-town papers for 'senator' & 'evolution'. Whatever turns up both phrases can be sold to someone.

I think NASA is as much of a drain on the nation's resources as Kentucky.

Setting aside how mind-numbingly asinine that remark is, I would like to introduce you to the concept of False Equivalence [wikipedia.org].

Taxpayer money invested in NASA projects has delivered huge returns in science, technology and prestige for the USA. Hardly a drain. And as one of the Curiosity scientists put it recently, they didn't just send $2.6 B to Mars and drop it there. That money was spent here on Earth.

Sure, they're stupid in Kentucky, but I didn't appreciate seeing all those tax-payer bought incredibly over priced apple laptops in mission control. Only the government would pay gobs of cash for a locked down version of BSD.

Apple products are generally more expensive than comparable products from other manufacturers, but not that much more expensive. Personally I don't use them, but I don't question the fiscal judgement of those who do. If you want to complain about overpriced tools bought with taxpayer money, I'd start with the military.

Re: Apple laptopsI work for astronomers and physicists, so I have an informed opinion on the Mac prefrence:It's an OS that comes, supported, on good hardware. Generally there aren't scrabbles to find drivers for hardware or other problems that you Just Don't Want if you travel a lot or have (literally) mission-critical duties. It also runs all of the software that astronomers have been running for decades. They still write FORTRAN. They will riot if you take away the command line.

The labor cost of buying Dells, for example, and throwing Linux on them can end up being higher than just spending extra for the Mac. It's especially true when something goes wrong and you can take it to any Apple store and get parts or software help, no admin needed.

I think NASA is as much of a drain on the nation's resources as Kentucky. Sure, they're stupid in Kentucky, but I didn't appreciate seeing all those tax-payer bought incredibly over priced apple laptops in mission control. Only the government would pay gobs of cash for a locked down version of BSD.

So what you're saying is basically "WTF has NASA done for me?" [wtfnasa.com]I'm curious what your impression is of the 2012 United States budget [wikipedia.org] overall, where if you total the enacted discretionary and mandatory budgets NASA ranks 15th among agencies out of 22. The Department of Agriculture's budget was almost eight times that of NASA and the Department of Defense budget was almost THIRTY-eight times that of NASA's.To put it another way, NASA's budget is just over 2.5% of the DOD's and about one half of one percent of the overall budget.IMO the United States does need to tighten its financial belt, but worrying about NASA's budget is like worrying about whether your rice cake is four inches in diameter or five... right after you've eaten an entire Thanksgiving dinner.

Sure, they're stupid in Kentucky, but I didn't appreciate seeing all those tax-payer bought incredibly over priced apple laptops in mission control.

Suppose average salary in mission control is $100,000 (probably low for high-tech jobs in the area, but we'll round) and that they're all contractors and don't get a penny worth of benefits. That Mac probably cost $1,000 more than the bare minimum Windows laptop that would run their apps (and that's making the rather huge assumption that those apps would be available on Windows, which has approximately zero market share in high level science, and that there would be zero training costs for them to switch to Windows). Finally, assume that the Macs will irreparably break the day after their three year warranty and deprecation schedules have expired.

Congratulations. Your plan to stick them with Windows laptops, in the best case, would save $333 per year - or 0.3% of their salary - in the absolute best case scenario.

Only the government would pay gobs of cash for a locked down version of BSD.

...and every major company I've been around, all of which seem to understand the concept of "penny wise, pound foolish" that eludes you.

Please remember that when people talk about a "war" on religion, this is the kind of stuff they're referring to. Nobody credible is trying to prevent anyone from worshiping the god of your choice. However, there is a sizable contingent of religious people out there who think that religious "freedom" means the freedom for everyone to be Christian, and anything that interferes with that goal is (or should) violate the First Amendment.

I never cease to be frustrated at people who wave the Constitution around and cry about how our freedom is being oppressed when it suits their ideological viewpoint, but then they pull stuff like this without seeing how much worse a violation of our liberty it is.

Jefferson is still right. Separation of church and state, it's the only reasonable way to ensure our freedom. That includes keeping creationism in churches where it belongs and out of our schools.

Freedom of religion comes to this in their eyes: we're free to agree with them. That's it.

The biggest point of ignorance about this is that the freedom to believe what we want benefits THEM the most. If Christianity becomes the "official" religion in the U.S., the question immediately becomes *what* form of Christianity. We seen it this year with all the Babtists crying about Mormonism. Freedom religion is there because that type of battle doesn't end until there are two people.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!""Why shouldn't I?" he said.I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"He said, "Like what?"I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"He said, "Religious."I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?"He said, "Christian."I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?"He said, "Protestant."I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?"He said, "Baptist!"I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?"He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?"He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!"I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?"He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

Exactly. I've also heard these people claim that our country is really a Christian nation and that Christianity should be the official religion. They'll usually claim that the founding fathers were Christian and thus they obviously wanted the country run as a Christian theocracy... no reason why they'd want government and religion separate, right?

Well, except for actual historical reasons such as persecution of those who don't follow the official State religion and government officials being in charge of where/how/when/who you worship. The latter should scare any religious person who previously wanted a religion to be the official state religion. Look at the tax code. Now imagine that, instead of describing how you paid Uncle Sam every year, it described how you worshiped God. Does anyone really think, if church-state separation were abolished, that *PRIESTS* would be making the rules? It would be politicians and bureaucrats. Likely with corporate lobbyist influence. (All hymns need to be registered with the RIAA's "Religious Melodies" department or else the church will be levied a $750 fine.)

Disclosure: I'm Jewish so making the Official State Religion That Everyone Must Practice any form of Christianity would be bad for me. However, as I said above, I'd also be against the government making Judaism the official religion because *I* want to decide how I worship, not some government official. (So long as my worship doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, of course.)

Nobody credible is trying to prevent anyone from worshiping the god of their choice. Plenty of people would love to prevent everyone from worshiping the god of your choice, depending on exactly which god that is.

You know that sinking feeling you get when you realize that your keys are in the car as you're closing the car door, but it's too late to stop the momentum of your arm to catch it? It's the same as that feeling I get when I click Submit and as the little spinner is spinning and the text is uploading, I realize, "Noooo!!! That's not what I meant!"

Creationsim does have a place in schools. When I was a senior in high school we had a class called "humanities." It was a class where we covered a bit of art and a bit of sociology. That's where it belongs. Teach the basic ideas behind the major religions and touch on their influence on the world stage.

By doing this you start to open up a middle ground where people learn a bit about each other and their cultures. By closing out this kind of knowledge you're leaving a big gap for the fringe to fill and use against you. The more people we can get involved in this middle ground the smaller the fringe becomes. This will make them less powerful and easier to spot at a distance.

Too many people want to fight tooth and nail instead of finding a common ground to work from. This is a waste of resources.

I'd love to have a literature elective in high school called "Creation Stories and Mythology from Around the World." It could begin and end with Genesis, but also touch on everything from Coyote sneezing out mountains to examples of new creation stories from modern literature, as well as some of the more out-there science hypothesis such as multiverses and parallel dimensions, and how they are used in speculative fiction.

I'd love to have a literature elective in high school called "Creation Stories and Mythology from Around the World." It could begin and end with Genesis, but also touch on everything from Coyote sneezing out mountains to examples of new creation stories from modern literature, as well as some of the more out-there science hypothesis such as multiverses and parallel dimensions, and how they are used in speculative fiction.

I went to a Jesuit high school, and that is pretty much what we were taught. There's a reason that the Jesuits are feared by other Christians. Many are prominent scientists.

Creationism would only have a place in a class that also taught about zeus impregnating goats, cutting out peoples hearts on top of a stepped pyramid for a good harvest and the blue skinned transgendered 8 armed gods.

No one would have a problem with that. The problem is that creationists think that somehow their worldview is legitimate science, and they are trying to push this into science classes. Not humanities classes. Not comparative religion classes. They don't want people to look at their creationism as religion. They want people to see that their religious beliefs are backed by science.

This all ties into the religious meme of "get them hooked while they're young and too dumb to understand". If these creationists were really concerned with science rather than child indoctrination, they would be trying to push their agenda upon science organizations and research groups. Obviously, they would be laughed out of the building if they tried that, so they take their batshit public and try to create a non-existent controversy. They cry "teach the controversy!" and appeal to "academic freedom", which appeals to the sense of freedom of Americans in general.

However, there is a sizable contingent of religious people out there who think that religious "freedom" means the freedom for everyone to be Christian, and anything that interferes with that goal is (or should) violate the First Amendment.

Not exactly. They think religious "freedom" means that they have the freedom to teach their kids to believe whatever they want (which is true). But further than that they think it means that they are free from anyone else contradicting those beliefs with their own beliefs which is where they are wrong, they have no so such freedom as it, obviously, severely restricts everyone else's freedom to say and believe what they wish.

Jefferson is still right. Separation of church and state, it's the only reasonable way to ensure our freedom. That includes keeping creationism in churches where it belongs and out of our schools.

Now, if only the US government stopped supporting the Islamist takeover of Syria, Egypt etc..., if only the Russian government stopped supporting the oppressive Orthodox Church of Russia against a couple of harmless girls... Separation of Church and State isn't very much en vogue nowadays; no matter where you look. That's really depressing, IMHO.

religious "freedom" means the freedom for everyone to be Christian, and anything that interferes with that goal is (or should) violate the First Amendment.

Or, as Asimov said:

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

Also important to point out: Yes, Thomas Jefferson really supported religious freedom. As did John Adams, Sam Adams, Thomas Paine, James Madison, George Washington, Ben Franklin, and most of the rest of that crowd. They did so in part because they wanted to avoid all the religious wars which were common in Europe at the time. 20 years later, they were still writing letters to each other about how great an idea it had turned out to be, and de Tocqueville commented that it had led to a flourishing of religion in the US, which statistically speaking has continued through to the present day.

The reason I bring this up is that David Barton and others like him have been busily rewriting American history to convince these nutjobs that the Establishment Clause should be ignored and Christianity be given a privileged place in the United States.

Whenever someone yells at me about "the Founding Fathers" and "non-separation of church and state", I like to point out that Jefferson was basically an agnostic, and Ben Franklin took part in satanic orgies. If the yelling moron is a hardline Protestant, I try to remember which of them were Catholic (for some reason many of them consider "papists" to be worse than atheists, which still baffles me); if the yelling moron is Catholic, I point out that the majority of the Founding Fathers were protestant and that if they had meant to establish a national religion, it would not have been theirs.

I also like bringing up the Treaty of Tripoli (from 179something), which not only claims absolutely that the US is not a Christian nation, but specifically that the United States has no problem with Islam. I point out that the attempt at the treaty was started by Washington himself, although it was Adams who signed it.

And when they speak of "war on religion" they certainly don't mean people placing restrictions on where Islamic communities can build their Mosques or community centers. War on Religion specifically means getting in the way of Christians.

It is another to claim that the theory disproves Biblical teachings and to call those teachings "myths" as I've seen some books directed at children do.

Then leave creationism out of school entirely. If you don't want your myths to be examined critically, keep them out of the public eye -- otherwise, yeah, we'll publicly call them BS just like we call every other creation myth BS.

Also, re: war on Christians... LOL. You realize that Christians make up a super majority in the US, right? Paraphrasing Jon Stewart, "You're confusing 'war' for 'not getting every single thing you want.'"

These aren't a coordinated effort, obviously, but it does seem that much of our culture has adopted two ideas very hostile to religion and Christiantiy. The first is that religion should only be practiced in private. The second is that religious acts are ok so long as you don't really believe it - that we'll respect your right to do purely symbolic rituals but we won't respect your right to believe..

And what is wrong with those two ideas? Absolutely, religion should only be practiced in private. It has no place in the public sphere.

And secondly, although I agree that religious people have the right to believe whatever silliness they wish, nothing on earth would compel me to respect those beliefs.

Furthermore, where religious beliefs come into conflict with human rights, religious beliefs have to yield.

In recent months when people talk about a "war on religion" they're more likely to be talking about the HHS mandate that any Calholic who owns a business must violate the teachings of their religion if the want to be allowed to hire employees

No, they don't. This is complete and utter bullshit. That business owner is still COMPLETELY FREE to not take birth control. They just don't have the "right" (which isn't a right, but rather a desire to oppress others) to force their views on others.

That's the same mandate that says religious observance is ok when practiced inside a church amoung other people of the same religion, but if your religion wants to you to something good for the community like run a soup-kitchen or hospital, you have to violate your relgion.

Again, nothing but horseshit. And tell me, why the fuck should your "religious freedom" trump anything else? If that business owner's "religious teachings" said that he should perform human sacrifice, or have sex with his employees, should that be allowed as well?

Since the Charlie Brown Christmas special came out maybe 50 years ago, have you seen another Christmas special on network TV that made any mention of the reason for Christmas?

Who the fuck cares? When was the last time you saw a holiday special on network TV that explained the reason for Chanukah, or Kwanza?

The first is that religion should only be practiced in private.

No. The idea is that practices of religion should not be forced onto others that don't want them. A business owner objecting to birth control for their employees is doing that exact thing, and they have no fucking right to do so.

"Is becoming" implies irrationality is growing and spreading. Is there some reason to think that? I don't know of any; actually I think it's the opposite. Now when we hear about these backwaters it is surprising simply because it's no longer normal.

In only the last 7 years the percent of Americans identifying as atheist increased from 1% to 5% [slate.com]. OK, so we've only finally reached parity with Saudi Arabia - but we were talking about trends.

Yep it's a challenge to live down here amongst the hillbillies. Tennessee's law actually doesn't mandate teaching creationism, it just prevents a teacher from getting into trouble for teaching alternative theories. As a substitute teacher (between software engineer gigs) I'm amassing age-appropriate clips from as many different religions and prehistoric traditions as I can find, so when the opportunity [resents itself, I'll be ready.

It's terrible to see the country slide backward down the ladder of technological pre-eminence due to these wackos. Decades of badmouthing government are going to take a toll on us pretty soon.

Note also that science shouldn't be taught as set in stone, either. There's a lot we don't know and kids enjoy comparing what was known to be true in my teenage years with what we know now.

Not believing in evolution after you've seen DNA is like sticking to chopsticks after you've seen the fork, no offense intended.

I am a Catholic guy, but I wasn't raised in the U.S. view's of creationism vs evolution. I am Mexican, and here, they teach us evolution *with* creationism. At church.

At school? They leave the God theories to the church. God has no business in the government schools, and teachers aren't nuns to be teaching kids about God anyway.

The way the Saturday Church classes taught me was that God didn't just create Adam and Eve, but evolved species into Adam and Eve. A simple way to explain it is that God plays Spore on a very big supercomputer with high definition graphics.

I don't get why Christians / Catholics get so pissy about Darwin being a theory and that a maker must've just spawned everything out of thin air. Both theories aren't mutually exclusive. The initial spores could've spawned out of thin air, then evolved into men and women.

And don't get me started with the Big Bang / Genesis thing, as the idea of creating the universe in 7 days is just wrong, but if some dude was shown a fast-forwarded video of the big bang and saw (and wrote) about creation taking place in 7 days, well that'd be a misunderstanding, I think.

Most Catholics I know have a similar, "moderate", background with respect to evolution. It's the Protestants that tend to be more fundamentalist and deny evolution. I believe the reason is that, historically, Catholicism has relied on church traditions for its belief system. When the Protestants broke away they needed new source material to justify their path to God, so they turned to the Bible. This propelled them on a course that adheres more to the Bible (and its ancient science).

Litteralism and creationism were long abandonned by mainstream catholic, hundred of years ago in europe. If you ask an european catholic he will probably tell you all those stuff including the eve story are jsut that, allegories, and that evolution happened. Both of those phenomenon (litteralism and creationism) are predominentely american phenomenon among christian (rather than protestan/catholic). In fact if I recall correctely they can be traced back to end of 18th start of 19th century in north america.

I am a Catholic guy, but I wasn't raised in the U.S. view's of creationism vs evolution. I am Mexican, and here, they teach us evolution *with* creationism. At church.

At school? They leave the God theories to the church. God has no business in the government schools, and teachers aren't nuns to be teaching kids about God anyway.

The way the Saturday Church classes taught me was that God didn't just create Adam and Eve, but evolved species into Adam and Eve. A simple way to explain it is that God plays Spore on a very big supercomputer with high definition graphics.

I don't get why Christians / Catholics get so pissy about Darwin being a theory and that a maker must've just spawned everything out of thin air. Both theories aren't mutually exclusive. The initial spores could've spawned out of thin air, then evolved into men and women.

And don't get me started with the Big Bang / Genesis thing, as the idea of creating the universe in 7 days is just wrong, but if some dude was shown a fast-forwarded video of the big bang and saw (and wrote) about creation taking place in 7 days, well that'd be a misunderstanding, I think.

I went to a Catholic school where evolution was taught (by priests) as fact and creationism as metaphor. It wasn't until college that I realized this was a peculiarity caused by my school being run by Jesuits in western America.

I don't get why Christians / Catholics get so pissy about Darwin being a theory and that a maker must've just spawned everything out of thin air. Both theories aren't mutually exclusive.

Catholics??? I thought this particular brand of nutbaggery was strictly a Protestant thing. After all the Pope has gone on record as saying there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and Catholic teachings.

Specifically, the term "creationism" is inadequate. What we really mean here is "Christian creationism." That puts a finer point on it, and lets everyone in the conversation know exactly what we mean. I think it even exposes the proponents of it to some enlightenment on what they're really saying.

I think an argument has more weight when you say, "Do you mean to tell me that you want Christian creationism taught instead of evolution? Do you think other religions' creationist ideologies should be taught as well?"

From now on, every time I get caught up in this argument, I will use the term, "Christian creationism," and not just "creationism."

of course darwin made it up! einstein also completely made up relativity. since they both used the scientific method, it turns out this theory they both proposed is both provable and a very good model for how the world and universe works, respectively. if the kentucky legislature wants to completely make up their own theory they are more than welcome to. if their theory turns out to be a better model than darwin's then by all means let's teach the one that is the most correct...

THIS! The idea that the lawmaker dismisses evolution as "made up" just because someone at some point thought of it (and didn't have the foresight to put it in the Bible) is un-fucking-believable. He clearly has NO idea what science is, what it's for, or why it's better than believing a 1000-2000 year old text that's been retranslated about twenty times. How do you even begin to reply to that kind of ignorance?